I will present the negative of the resolution, "The drinking age should be lowered in America." I will support keeping the drinking age at 21 instead of decreasing it to 18. Because my opponent is Pro, the burden of proof is on her to prove why the drinking age should be lowered in America. Thank you.

Thank you for inviting me to this debate since my other opponent apparently is too busy or something to respond to mine. Since I have already made my case, I am going to do the "copy & paste" trick :)

1-At 18 you should be able to drink if you are allowed to do everything else that isn't legal until you are an adult. I cannot really provide any sources, for this is my opinion. I believe many would agree with this.

2-People at war deserve to be able to legally drink. A span of three years is a lot, [18-21] considering they are fighting for their country and should be able to drink if they want. War is stressful, and while I don't agree alcohol is the answer, some people do.

3-There are many MIPs that account from drinking. Why take so much time to write an 18-20 year old up for drinking? I would be pretty pissed if I was considered a "minor" after 18. So many parties have underage drinking without getting caught anyway, knowing that it's illegal is only part of the fun :)

4-Why 21? The only other countries in the WORLD that has a legal drinking age of 21- Armenia, Indonesia, and Palau. I believe I can safely say that we are nothing like those countries. All of Europe has a drinking age of 18 or younger. In some countries, there isn't a limit. [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

5-College is a place not only to get your education for further career advancements, but to have new experiences. DRINKING is a huge one. In fact, some major colleges are "talking" about lowering the drinking age on campus. [http://www.nysun.com...]>>>there are numerous other references for this fact.

As both me and my opponent have each forfeited the second round, that round shall be considered disqualified and not effect my opponent nor I in any way, for no arguments were posted for either side.

I will rebuttle your argument in the order you gave it:

1-"At 18 you should be able to drink if you are allowed to do everything else that isn't legal until you are an adult"

That is simply an opinion. Just saying something "should" happen does not provide proof or evidence to your side of the case. If I said "the drinking age should remain the same," I have just argued what you were arguing, giving no proof or evidence. So both your statement and mine would cancel each other out, due to lack of the evidence or research, which you even admit to. "I cannot really provide any sources, for this is my opinion" Your first argument should be immediately invalid, for you have no proof of evidence.

But I will give a rebuttal to your argument. You say the drinking age should be lowered to 18 just because you can do anything else at the age of 18. First, that is a fallacy and you give no proof, you say people can do everything else legally at age 18, which they cannot. And second, alcohol has negative effects on the brain and on the individual person. Your burden of proof is to show that lowering the drinking age would be beneficial.

" I believe many would agree with this"

Well, what you believe does not matter. All people have their beliefs, and you gave no reasons why many would agree with your statement. And it would not matter if people originally agree with your view, the whole point of debating is to change the views of others.

2-You regard only people at war. Because the debate topic is if the drinking age should be lowered in America, the people at war are technically not in America and would be excluded from the topic at hand. But I will proceed with aa rebuttal. You say people at war should just be able to drink because fighting is a lot and takes a lot of work. Why though? Would it be beneficial? Why? You give no reasons. You say that is because war is stressful, well obviously! But many other late teens have work that is very stressful, but that does not give them the right to drink. Drinking is bad for the body. To relieve stress, it is entirely beneficial to do things like exercise or taking time off, not drinking. And do you really want the new soldiers (18-21 years of age, because that is what the topic applies to) to be impaired when they are defending our country? Soldiers are constantly focused on defense and protection, so drinking would only allow them to lack in defense and affect them negatively. I don't know about you, but I don't want drunk soldiers to protect the country, that would lead to ultimate downfall.

3- This argument is ridiculous. "Why take so much time to write an 18-20 year old for drinking?" To keep them from potentially harming others and themselves. The brain has not stopped developing until the early 20's, so a drunk teenager is more likely to have impaired judgement and make poor choices. It is all to protect the kids drinking, the people who aren't drinking (if the drunk teen goes on road and drives, they can harm other innocent people), and
overall society. They take time to write them up to keep order and safety in society!

"I would be pretty pissed if I was considered a "minor" after 18."
Well, if you drink at age 18, you technically are a minor in references to drinking, so it should not piss you off, it is simple fact. And besides, being pretty pissed does not correlate to the argument and only shows that you do not understand the safeties and precautions used to protect teens from drinking.

"So many parties have underage drinking without getting caught anyway, knowing that it's illegal is only part of the fun :)"

You argue that just because parties do it illeagly and escape persecution, then it should be lowered. If you lower the age to 18, then you will have 15-17 year olds doing it illegaly, and so on and so forth. You have to set a limit. Every law or order will always have people abusing it, and your argument proves nothing. Just because people do it illegaly does not mean it should be lowered. Knowing that it's illegal is only part of the fun? The fun in drinking, getting wasted, and making poor decisions? I have had relatives die from teens who wanted to have illegal "fun" and get wasted, get in their cars, and drive. They were killed by drunk drivers! One of the drunk drivers lived, and his argument was that he was only having fun. How stupid is that? There are plenty of other means to having fun without consuming alcohol.

4- why 21? Youragrue that because only a few other countries use 21 as the drinking age and we are nothing like them, then we should not have ours at 21. What are you saying? You make no correlation and do not prove why it should be lowered. Just saying we are not like those countries is not proof, you need to explain why it should be lowered IN AMERICA, so saying your first sentence about other countries is a waste of time.

" All of Europe has a drinking age of 18 or younger. In some countries, there isn't a limit. "

This is because countries in Europe have greatly different culture than we do. Europeans have a much different viewpoint of drinking. They are raised to respect alcohol and not overconsume it. They do not need the age of 21 because of their experiences and the way they were raised. In this country, many teens do not respect alcohol and drink just to get drunk. Saying other countries lower it or don't have it is not proof, America is a completely different society than they are. P.S. wikipedia is an unreliable source

5-You claim the drinking age should be lowered because kids in college want to experience drinking. If it's so huge, then explain why it's so huge. How would it be beneficial? How? You give no proof or support. Colleges talking about lowering the drinking age on campus does not really related to the overall drinking age in America. And besides, just talking about it means nothing- you give no proof why it should be lowered.

I would just like to say my opponent has really given no substantial proof as to why it should be lowered. First she gives an opinion and no proof. Second, she only regards youngsters at war, which are not even in America at the time. Third, she says the age should be lowered because it is too much work to write up drunk kids and help keep the society safe. What kind of an argument is that? Fourth, she says why 21 and just says other countries do not. Well, that does not truly matter, we have a different culture and you did not prove why it should be lowered. And fifthly, she says drinking is a huge experience and does not say exactly why. As shown, the opponent has an obvious lack of proof for her side. Her burden of proof is to prove why it should be lowered in America. I hope you come up with more details.

this unfortunately has not turned into much of a debate. because I have already rebutted all of her points and she has not successfully responded, I guess that means my points still stand and I have supported my side sufficiently. My opponent has forfeited more rounds than I have and I defended. Thanks

oh my gosh in my debate class in school you will want to know that it is going to be lowered, when I saw the students debate this in my school it was like trying to prove that we could live on carbon, so good luck with this one!!